Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 19, 2017, 09:34:15 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: UAS Registration
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [All] Print
Author Topic: UAS Registration  (Read 2538 times)
FalconHatTrick
Recruit

Posts: 42

« on: December 28, 2015, 06:39:42 PM »

With new regulations being put into place effective 21 December 2015, anyone owning a small unmanned aircraft will be required to register with the FAA.  Failure to register could face civil and criminal penalties.

http://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/

The owner must be:
  • 13 years of age or older. (If the owner is less than 13 years of age, a person 13 years of age or older must register the small unmanned aircraft.)
  • A U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident.

Owners must register their UAS online if it weighs more than 0.55 lbs. (250 g) and less than 55 lbs. UAS include drones, model airplanes, model helicopters, etc.

I personally just registered and it took less than 5 minutes.  You will receive a registration number which much be written on the aircraft either with a marker or label.  You will also receive a certificate with your name and registration number on it. Nice part is there's no limit to the number of aircraft that you can have under your registration number.  So even if you do not own a UAS now, you can still register and save your registration number for later.

If you register before 20 January 2016, the FAA will refund your $5 registration fee. Registrations are valid for 3 years. After 3 years you will have to re-register and pay the $5 fee.

I know some Squadrons have a model airplane or two, so register while its still free!
Logged
Maj, CAP
Former C/Lt Col
ATP/CFI/CFII
LR-JET/DA-50
Lord of the North
Forum Regular

Posts: 111

« Reply #1 on: December 28, 2015, 10:22:18 PM »

Civil Air Patrol eServices News
IMPORTANT - ACTION REQUIRED: FAA UAS Registration
16 Dec 2015

Good afternoon commanders and staff. As many of you are aware, in the last few days the FAA has released requirements to register recreational/hobby UASes that weigh more than .55 pounds (approx 9 oz) starting next week. These requirements apply to our CAP resources including the model airplanes and copters provided through the STEM program as well as any UAS that our CAP units have received or procured through other means. CAP National Headquarters will accomplish this registration for all of our CAP owned resources. DO NOT INDIVIDUALLY REGISTER THEM YOURSELVES. If you have already done so, please contact me via email immediately. Below is our path forward:

First, we must register all of the units we have fielded for educational purposes. Dr. Jeff Montgomery is providing my staff the information on the STEM kit UASes fielded by his office. If any of your units own a model airplane, copter or other system that could be considered a UAS (see http://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/faqs/) that was NOT provided as part of a STEM kit that you are using for educational purposes, please have your unit POCs email my administrative assistant, LaShonda Frazier (lfrazier@capnhq.gov) with the make and model of the system, the unit charter number it is assigned to, and the email address and CAPID of the POC for the system by COB on 21 Dec; we will gladly accept emails from one wing POC if you have someone already coordinating these issues, but because of the short time frame if individual units need to send answers direct, that is ok. Once we have accomplished our bulk registration next week, we will email the certificate to the POCs collected above, CAP units that have received STEM kits, commanders and key staff personnel, and also make it available online for future use and download. After 20 Dec, the FAA is requiring that we mark each educational UAS with our unique bulk registration number before we operate the units outdoors, and when flying these UAS outdoors the operators must be able to present the certificate in either print or electronic format if asked for proof of registration.

Second, we must individually register UASes that will be used for operational mission purposes like imagery collection for disaster relief, search and rescue, etc and expect we will also have to provide details to our insurance carrier as well. We do not have any approved UASes for operational mission use yet, but I know some of you have either already received units from your state counterparts or other means with that intention, will soon, or would like to dual purpose the STEM kits above. The online process for us to register UASes for this purpose with the FAA is expected to be available sometime after the new year, and my office will register those units as well. We will need more information in order to register those units and will put out more detailed guidance on that after the new year. Until otherwise registered and approved, do not fly UASes for operational mission purposes on behalf of CAP. If any of your units have a UAS already or are expected to receive one any time soon that they intend to use for operational missions, please also have the unit’s UAS POC contact LaShonda via email (see above) so that we can work together to chart a path ahead. I intend to host a conference call or webinar that we will announce the first week of January. For now, do not plan to re-purpose STEM kits for operational mission use immediately; NHQ will develop guidance for how we can do so legally and effectively in the coming months.

Last, because of the above registration issues and the insurance and liability associated with them, we will need to track all model aircraft, copters, and other types of UASes that CAP owns across the country. Expect more guidance on this after the new year once tools have been put in place to do so.

In order to give this the widest dissemination possible, I’ve sent this message to all wing and region AEs, CPs, CSes, CVs, DCs, DOs, DOSes, DOCs, and DOHs in addition to all wing and region commanders, and will also post this message traffic in e-services and out to the RSS feed. Thanks in advance for your support and quick response on this issue.

v/r

John D.

John W. Desmarais, Sr.
HQ CAP Director of Operations
(O) 877.227.9142 ext. 301
(O) 334.953.7748 ext. 301
(DSN) 493.7748 ext. 301
U.S. Air Force Auxiliary
gocivilairpatrol.com
Logged
Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 436

« Reply #2 on: January 01, 2016, 02:23:55 PM »

I think the three links below adequately demonstrate why registration of recreational drones (aka "UAS") is over due.

The linked videos are pretty interesting.  One demonstrates the ease of converting an RC toy to a lethal weapon (some kids did it with tape).  Now think of other packages the quad copter could carry that would be a little more lethal than Roman Candles (though the Roman Candle trick would be a very efficacious way for an arsonist to spread fire through a structure or in wildlands).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_MIA7jSBlA

Heres a clear demonstration of why existing rules are woefully inadequate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JobRTBBvIKQ

And an interesting CBC article about a drone striking an auto on the street causing $1000 (Canadian) in damage - about $1300 US.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/belleville-drone-vs-vehicle-crash-probably-won-t-be-the-last-police-1.3383325

It's a sure bet that a lot of stuff is already being done, but the participants in this experimentation are too saavy to video themselves and post the events on Youtube, Vimeo, or elsewhere.
Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,017
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #3 on: May 28, 2017, 02:49:04 AM »

Unlocked by request.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,896

« Reply #4 on: May 28, 2017, 10:30:20 AM »

No More Drone Registration for Hobbyists
http://www.tested.com/tech/613383-no-more-drone-registration-hobbyists/

"Last Friday (5/19/17), a federal court ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) drone registration policy for hobbyists is illegal. The immediate effect of this decision is that hobbyists no longer need to register with the FAA or maintain a current registration. It is not, however, a blanket exemption for all hobbyists. Recreational flyers must meet a few stipulations to be relieved from registration (more on that later). Those who fly RC models for commercial purposes must still register as well."

As noted in the article and also below, the FAA has 45 days to appeal, so this may not be over.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/uavLegalNews/permalink/1218798841579502/



Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,835

« Reply #5 on: May 28, 2017, 11:58:41 AM »

No More Drone Registration for Hobbyists
http://www.tested.com/tech/613383-no-more-drone-registration-hobbyists/

"Last Friday (5/19/17), a federal court ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) drone registration policy for hobbyists is illegal. The immediate effect of this decision is that hobbyists no longer need to register with the FAA or maintain a current registration. It is not, however, a blanket exemption for all hobbyists. Recreational flyers must meet a few stipulations to be relieved from registration (more on that later). Those who fly RC models for commercial purposes must still register as well."

As noted in the article and also below, the FAA has 45 days to appeal, so this may not be over.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/uavLegalNews/permalink/1218798841579502/




You know they're gonna appeal. So I wouldn't make any changes based on this decision.
It will probably be a year or more before this stuff is sorted out.
Logged
JoeTomasone
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,659

« Reply #6 on: May 28, 2017, 05:02:38 PM »

The drone rules for non-hobby flight are in flux right now.  The FAA has said that they plan to make changes to Part 107 this year. 

As for hobby flight, unless Congress changes the law, expect the registration to go away after any appeals and not much else.

Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 789

« Reply #7 on: May 28, 2017, 10:15:06 PM »

The FAA's movements all seem so strange at first glance. They want to regulate commercial drones so heavily, in the guise of safety, yet the hobbyists are granted incredible leeway.

So its obvious that 'safety' isn't really the issue here, or at least its not at the top of the list.

As someone who has been heavily involved in commercial aerial photography/video for over 17 years now, I've been watching all this closely. If you've seen the new online airspace maps for drones, its getting very detailed with little small squares. This is all about airspace. Amazon, FedEx, UPS and others have been heavily involved and lobbying both Congress and the FAA and others. This is all about carving out airspace for deliveries. Setting up no-fly zones for us 'small commercial drone operators" so the big dogs will own the lower airspace.

Watch for it.
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP
JoeTomasone
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,659

« Reply #8 on: May 28, 2017, 10:38:44 PM »

The FAA's movements all seem so strange at first glance. They want to regulate commercial drones so heavily, in the guise of safety, yet the hobbyists are granted incredible leeway.


That's Congress' fault.   In the Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, they mandated that "Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft" if it met certain conditions, which essentially are those rules that are currently in effect:

(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;

(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;

(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds

(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft;

(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation

(Some snipped for brevity)


They also defined a model aircraft:


the term model aircraft means an unmanned aircraft that is

(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.


This gets even more complex when you consider "operated in accordance with a community based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization".  That's where a group like the AMA has laid out rules for their members to abide by for safety.   That's where limitations like avoiding human overflight, 400' altitude limit, and others come into play.   

...So add that all up, and you have the hobby rules.

The Taylor ruling argued successfully that requiring registration was a "rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft". 

Obviously, anything flown for non-hobby purposes does not fall under this section - hence the adoption of Part 107 for non-hobby UAS flight.

« Last Edit: May 28, 2017, 10:42:59 PM by JoeTomasone » Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 789

« Reply #9 on: May 29, 2017, 12:45:24 AM »

^^^ Yes I know all of that. My first line about hobbyists was more of an aside.

My main point is the strange way they are regulating Part 107 folks. And how these new maps are so precise. I really do feel this will wind up being an Amazon or Google related issue. It just all seems that way. We are about to lose the lower altitudes to big corporations. It will not only affect commercial drone operators under Part 107 ... but is headed toward restrictions for GA aircraft at some point.

I enjoy a low level, sunset flight, in a plane over my city for fun. That type of flying may be coming to a close. It already has in most areas of Europe and other places.
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP
Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 436

« Reply #10 on: May 29, 2017, 12:03:01 PM »

One of the attorneys in the court battle published an interesting analysis.  See:  https://jrupprechtlaw.com/drone-registration-lawsuit#whichside  Among the very interesting suggestions was one that is highly likely to be the most effective, and also least likely to be implemented:  "Register at the point of sale..."   I can imagine the lineup of big box stores (all in the background, of course) behind the AMA and other RC groups opposing that requirement.  Ultimately, Rupprecht's analysis points to one likely 'fix':  Congress needs to revise or eliminate Section 336 when the Act is revisited in 2017-2018.  Overall, the article is a good read.
Logged
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,835

« Reply #11 on: May 29, 2017, 12:36:42 PM »

One of the attorneys in the court battle published an interesting analysis.  See:  https://jrupprechtlaw.com/drone-registration-lawsuit#whichside  Among the very interesting suggestions was one that is highly likely to be the most effective, and also least likely to be implemented:  "Register at the point of sale..."   I can imagine the lineup of big box stores (all in the background, of course) behind the AMA and other RC groups opposing that requirement.  Ultimately, Rupprecht's analysis points to one likely 'fix':  Congress needs to revise or eliminate Section 336 when the Act is revisited in 2017-2018.  Overall, the article is a good read.

The "Big Box Stores" usually use computerized Point of Sale systems. Adding a registration module to the software shouldn't be that hard to do.
Logged
Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 436

« Reply #12 on: May 29, 2017, 01:18:26 PM »


The "Big Box Stores" usually use computerized Point of Sale systems. Adding a registration module to the software shouldn't be that hard to do.

Naw. Data handling isn't at all the root root cause for big box push back.  I can easily see Joselin DroneFlyer showing up at a ABCWXYZ check out with shiny new All American "Eagle" (made elsewhere, of course) who, when told "your new 'aircraft' must be registered, please provide your DL, full name, and address...", will walk out the door  (minus the Eagle) upset and an unhappy customer.  Software isn't the problem.  It's the hassle, checkout line congestion (how many potential customers could be processed in the time required to register ONE drone?), and likely lost sales, etc.  As with cars, narcotics, guns, and commercial airline tickets, protection orders and a "no Drone" list is sure to follow.  And, as with those examples, in some cases would be a darned good idea.  :(
Logged
JoeTomasone
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,659

« Reply #13 on: May 29, 2017, 01:25:42 PM »

The "Big Box Stores" usually use computerized Point of Sale systems. Adding a registration module to the software shouldn't be that hard to do.

But costly.  And considering the percentage of drone sales at your local Best Buy compared to everything else?  Small.

No regulation that increases cost for big business and offers so little reward will never happen in this Administration. 

My bet - an accident - with serious injury or a fatality - will get Congress inspired to rework 336.

Logged
Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 436

« Reply #14 on: May 30, 2017, 12:22:20 AM »


My bet - an accident - with serious injury or a fatality - will get Congress inspired to rework 336.

Bingo.  Or more likely, a deliberate  assault on some VIP, candidate for Congress or even a candidate for  the office of POTUS.  Could also be a very well publicized event with terrorist roots that either involves a commercial airliner or things that go "Boom" in a crowd of youngsters.  This really is a potentially big deal, and the US is well behind a lot of the rest of the world on recognizing it as such. With the proliferation of the devices, AND the well reported death of at least one US soldier/seal a few months ago it's already out there that toys are easily weaponized for targeted precision surprise attacks.  It's not like operating a drone requires much training or a lot of skill. 
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,896

« Reply #15 on: May 30, 2017, 01:03:15 AM »

Registration of a device you can literally buy at Walmart isn't going to stop
bad people from doing dumb / bad things with them, and the ability to
build them from readily and easily available parts make it difficult to limit their use, regardless.

Without an outright ban, or significant regulation ala gun control (which is super-effective, right?),
registration will be just another GMRS license - a value add charge >after< something bad happens,
and only adhered to by people who generally don't do bad (though sometimes dumb) things on purpose.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

wuzafuzz
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,160

TVCS Website
« Reply #16 on: May 30, 2017, 06:52:01 AM »

Eclipse nailed it with the comparison to GMRS.

People buy their toys at the big box store and never even notice their GMRS beep boop radio requires a license. Or they blow it off because no one follows that anyway. Few of us pay for the license. It's an "honor system for suckers."  Enforcement is non-existent and people stare at you like you're nuts if you ask about their FCC license.

Voluntary UAS registration for hobbyists is much the same. It's an honor system, and the folks we are most concerned about have no honor. Unless registration is front loaded at the point of sale it will be ineffective. Then there's secondary sales, transfers, gifts, etc. Good luck controlling that without new laws, education, and mind-numbing bureaucracy. Millions of hobby UAV's are already out there.  Catching those up with the program will be spotty at best.
Logged
"You can't stop the signal, Mal."
Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 436

« Reply #17 on: May 30, 2017, 12:42:17 PM »

Registration of a device you can literally buy at Walmart isn't going to stop
bad people from doing dumb / bad things with them, and the ability to
build them from readily and easily available parts make it difficult to limit their use, regardless.

Without an outright ban, or significant regulation ala gun control (which is super-effective, right?),
registration will be just another GMRS license - a value add charge >after< something bad happens,
and only adhered to by people who generally don't do bad (though sometimes dumb) things on purpose.

I speculate that we both know how anonymity is a great shield utilized by many to avoid accountability.  I'm not a great supporter of the GC discussion... however arguing it is ineffective is ignoring the role a paper trail plays in unraveling many misdeeds.  It's clear that registration of drones won't eliminate stupidity, nor will it contain evil intent.  However, the benefits are no different from registering cars, airplanes, or drivers.  IMHO, in the balance those benefits push the practice to the positive side of the ledger.  Clearly an 'outright ban' would be a nice - though futile - outcome for those who believe it would truly eliminate any risk.  But, again, our experience with GC (see France or GB, for example, or closer to home D.C. and NYC) shows serious and detrimental 'leakage' occurs.  As a kid I recall building a 'zip gun' and a pipe gun from readily available parts (and no, I no longer practice either craft nor did I do it with criminal intent... I just did it "because").  With 3D printing, a sophisticated drone built in a small corner of an apartment is an obvious (and undetectable) potential reality.  So, what else should we ban (aside from cars, heavy trucks, chemistry sets, and increasingly available bioengineering kits?  Maybe it is "too late" to institute effective registration given that bird is long since gone from the cage.  Dunno.  Great debate.  Maybe even enlightening.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 12:50:02 PM by Live2Learn » Logged
JoeTomasone
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,659

« Reply #18 on: May 30, 2017, 03:21:38 PM »

Eclipse nailed it with the comparison to GMRS.

People buy their toys at the big box store and never even notice their GMRS beep boop radio requires a license. Or they blow it off because no one follows that anyway. Few of us pay for the license. It's an "honor system for suckers."  Enforcement is non-existent and people stare at you like you're nuts if you ask about their FCC license.


Well, that's complicated by the fact that many big box store units are combined FRS (license by rule) and GMRS (license by application/fee) units and the fact that some of those channels overlap.   

But the analogy is apt - no law enforcement officer is going to DF some unlicensed GMRS operator, and the FCC won't get involved unless it (somehow) presents a real issue to safety or something.   Likewise, how is the law enforcement officer to find the owner of a drone that doesn't crash but is observed over a stadium or inside a location under TFR?   Heck, for that matter, how would the FSDO?

The only answer I can think of is for all flight logs to be stored and made searchable by the manufacturer - so when the FAA asks if one of their users was flying near a given lat/long on a given day, they can provide details on who registered the unit.    It sucks, and people will get mad, but it is the least invasive way to provide some accountability that I can think of.   Yeah, there's ways to beat it, but it would assuredly be effective on the vast majority of knuckleheads like the one at Petco Park.   

Logged
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,835

« Reply #19 on: May 30, 2017, 08:38:39 PM »

The first time someone dies because a drone being operated unsafely will result in the usual kneejerk reaction from our friends in Congress.
There have already been several instances over the past couple of years where aerial fire fighting efforts had to be grounded because drones were flying in the airspace around the fire trying to get pictures.
So far it's just been property that has been lost...
Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 789

« Reply #20 on: May 30, 2017, 09:46:38 PM »

The first time someone dies because a drone being operated unsafely will result in the usual kneejerk reaction from our friends in Congress.


Before that happens we will have 5 million drones flying around. (Or more) The cats out of the bag. Can't make them illegal now, but they could impose some heavy penalties for incidents. Yet Congress will never fund enforcement activity.
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,835

« Reply #21 on: May 30, 2017, 09:58:19 PM »

The first time someone dies because a drone being operated unsafely will result in the usual kneejerk reaction from our friends in Congress.


Before that happens we will have 5 million drones flying around. (Or more) The cats out of the bag. Can't make them illegal now, but they could impose some heavy penalties for incidents. Yet Congress will never fund enforcement activity.

Never even said that they would ban them, but, a heavy handed response from the folks up on the hill is a real possibility.
The possibility of stuff like a "drone jammer" is a real possibility.
Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 789

« Reply #22 on: May 30, 2017, 10:06:02 PM »


The possibility of stuff like a "drone jammer" is a real possibility.

Oh yes. I expect we will start seeing those at every large event soon, like sporting, politics and more. Some seem to be very directional, so they could take down a rogue drone and not affect an approved one being used.
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,835

« Reply #23 on: May 30, 2017, 11:37:29 PM »


The possibility of stuff like a "drone jammer" is a real possibility.

Oh yes. I expect we will start seeing those at every large event soon, like sporting, politics and more. Some seem to be very directional, so they could take down a rogue drone and not affect an approved one being used.

Thinking more along the line of use at an activity that has a lot of aircraft, like a wild fire or after a tornado or hurricane.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [All] Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: UAS Registration
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.123 seconds with 20 queries.